| 1. |
- Salvatore, Tanya, et al.
(författare)
-
Selection of the optimal candidate to mitraclip for secondary mitral regurgitation : Beyond mitral valve morphology
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2297-055X. ; 8
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) occurs despite structurally normal valve apparatus due to an underlying disease of the myocardium leading to disruption of the balance between tethering and closing forces with ensuing failure of leaflet coaptation. In patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular dysfunction, secondary MR is independently associated with poor outcome, yet prognostic benefits related to the correction of MR have remained elusive. Surgery is not recommended for the correction of secondary MR outside coronary artery bypass grafting. Percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) with MitraClip implantation has recently evolved as a new transcatheter treatment option of inoperable or high-risk patients with severe MR, with promising results supporting the extension of guideline recommendations. MitraClip is highly effective in reducing secondary MR in HF patients. However, the derived clinical benefit is still controversial as two randomized trials directly comparing PMVR vs. optimal medical therapy in severe secondary MR yielded virtually opposite conclusions. We reviewed current evidence to identify predictors of PMVR-related outcomes in secondary MR useful to improve the timing and the selection of patients who would derive maximal benefit from MitraClip intervention. Beyond mitral valve anatomy, optimal candidate selection should rely on a comprehensive diagnostic workup and a fine-tuned risk stratification process aimed at (i) recognizing the substantial heterogeneity of secondary MR and its complex interaction with the myocardium, (ii) foreseeing hemodynamic consequences of PMVR, (iii) anticipating futility and (iv) improving symptoms, quality of life and overall survival.
|
|
| 2. |
- Khanji, Mohammed Y., et al.
(författare)
-
Management of aortic stenosis : A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2058-5225 .- 2058-1742. ; 7:4, s. 340-353
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Multiple guidelines exist for the management of aortic stenosis (AS). We systematically reviewed current guidelines and recommendations, developed by national or international medical organizations, on management of AS to aid clinical decision-making. Publications in MEDLINE and EMBASE between 1 June 2010 and 15 January 2021 were identified. Additionally, the International Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and websites of relevant organizations were searched. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Two reviewers assessed rigour of guideline development and extracted the recommendations. Of the seven guidelines and recommendations retrieved, five showed considerable rigour of development. Those rigourously developed, agreed on the definition of severe AS and diverse haemodynamic phenotypes, indications and contraindications for intervention in symptomatic severe AS, surveillance intervals in asymptomatic severe AS, and the importance of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and shared decision-making. Discrepancies exist in age and surgical risk cut-offs for recommending surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) vs. transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the use of biomarkers and complementary multimodality imaging for decision-making in asymptomatic patients and surveillance intervals for non-severe AS. Contemporary guidelines for AS management agree on the importance of MDT involvement and shared decision-making for individualized treatment and unanimously indicate valve replacement in severe, symptomatic AS. Discrepancies exist in thresholds for age and procedural risk used in choosing between SAVR and TAVI, role of biomarkers and complementary imaging modalities to define AS severity and risk of progression in asymptomatic patients.
|
|
